epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018115.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "749",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 236 918 LBUCmax1\n\n1 Honor already made, that this is overly prejudicial and the\n2 jury will draw the wrong conclusion from it, so we need to\n3 exclude it. I don't see the difference.\n4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think the difference here is\n5 that, in Mr. Everdell's -- in the photograph that your Honor\n6 excluded, the photograph was on the floor. It was unclear\n7 where it had been positioned originally. It was unclear where\n8 it had been positioned when the search was conducted.\n9 Here, this is a photograph I expect the witness will\n10 testify to, showing the exact placement, and the reason we need\n11 that closeup is because the photograph of the zoomed-out\n12 bookshelf, you cannot actually see the image. You can see the\n13 frame and you can tell that it's the same circular frame, but\n14 you cannot see the image without a closeup, so we will show the\n15 two in succession.\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, that's the point. If you\n17 zoom out, you will see this photograph in the context of other\n18 photographs that are nonsexual. This I don't think is sexual,\n19 but that are not with underage girls, that are with other\n20 photos, including people with adults. It's shown in context in\n21 a series of photos along a bookshelf where people tend to keep\n22 photos, lots of different photos, and it will show a panoply of\n23 photos that is not one photo of a clearly minor child with him\n24 looking like he's about to bite her backside. At least there\n25 you have a full context of other photos and it is not a zoom-in\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00018115",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 236 918 LBUCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Honor already made, that this is overly prejudicial and the\n2 jury will draw the wrong conclusion from it, so we need to\n3 exclude it. I don't see the difference.\n4 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think the difference here is\n5 that, in Mr. Everdell's -- in the photograph that your Honor\n6 excluded, the photograph was on the floor. It was unclear\n7 where it had been positioned originally. It was unclear where\n8 it had been positioned when the search was conducted.\n9 Here, this is a photograph I expect the witness will\n10 testify to, showing the exact placement, and the reason we need\n11 that closeup is because the photograph of the zoomed-out\n12 bookshelf, you cannot actually see the image. You can see the\n13 frame and you can tell that it's the same circular frame, but\n14 you cannot see the image without a closeup, so we will show the\n15 two in succession.\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, that's the point. If you\n17 zoom out, you will see this photograph in the context of other\n18 photographs that are nonsexual. This I don't think is sexual,\n19 but that are not with underage girls, that are with other\n20 photos, including people with adults. It's shown in context in\n21 a series of photos along a bookshelf where people tend to keep\n22 photos, lots of different photos, and it will show a panoply of\n23 photos that is not one photo of a clearly minor child with him\n24 looking like he's about to bite her backside. At least there\n25 you have a full context of other photos and it is not a zoom-in",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018115",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "749",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018115"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion about the admissibility of a photograph as evidence. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor formatting issues due to the original document's layout."
}